FPL Copilot

Compare players

compare_players

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when choosing between two or three FPL players (e.g. 'Saka or Palmer?', one transfer for another, or whether a -4 hit is worth it): expected points over the coming gameweeks, form, price and ownership side by side.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "names": "<names>"
    },
    "name": "compare_players"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`names`	Yes	2-3 player names
`horizon`	No	How many gameweeks ahead to count (1-8).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 2, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / horizon / maximum
```
Removed value: -8
```
- removedInput schema / properties / horizon / minimum
```
Removed value: -1
```
- changedInput schema / properties / names / items / maxLength
```
Previous value: -40New value: +60
```
- changedInput schema / properties / names / maxItems
```
Previous value: -3New value: +10
```
- removedInput schema / properties / names / minItems
```
Removed value: -2
```
First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the response shape (side-by-side xP over coming gameweeks, form, price, ownership), which annotations do not convey. It omits edge behavior such as what happens with more than three names or unknown player strings.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the decision context and then lists the compared metrics; the parenthetical examples earn their place by disambiguating the trigger. No filler or restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description fills the important gap by describing what the comparison returns. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases (4+ names allowed by schema, unrecognized names), which would matter for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: 'expected points over the coming gameweeks' ties the horizon parameter to the projection window being compared, and 'two or three players' signals the practical cardinality. It does not note the tension with the schema's maxItems of 10, so the upper bound remains ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ('compare') plus a specific resource (two or three FPL players) and an explicit statement of what the comparison contains: expected points, form, price, ownership. It is clearly distinguishable from find_players (discovery) and get_player (single-player lookup) without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use trigger and three concrete scenarios ('Saka or Palmer?', one transfer for another, whether a -4 hit is worth it), which is unusually actionable guidance. It does not name alternatives (get_player, find_players) or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All FPL Copilot tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?